3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
The real and important question to him is, “Did you perform the
VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
Batulanon vs. People
*
G.R. No. 139857. September 15, 2006.
LEONILA BATULANON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Criminal Law; Falsification; Estafa; Pleadings and Practice;
Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through
falsification of commercial document, the accused could be
convicted of falsification of private document under the well-settled
rule that it is the allegations in the information that determines
the nature of the offense and not the technical name given in the
preamble of the information.—Although the offense charged in the
information is
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Batulanon vs. People
estafa through falsification of commercial document, appellant
could be convicted of falsification of private document under the
well-settled rule that it is the allegations in the information that
determines the nature of the offense and not the technical name
given in the preamble of the information. In Andaya v. People, 493
SCRA 539 (2006), we held: From a legal point of view, and in a
very real sense, it is of no concern to the accused what is the
technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. It in no
way aids him in a defense on the merits. x x x That to which his
attention should be directed, and in which he, above all things
else, should be most interested, are the facts alleged. The real
question is not did he commit a crime given in the law some
technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in
the body of the information in the manner therein set forth. x x x
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
acts alleged in the manner alleged?” not, “Did you commit a crime
named murder?” If he performed the acts alleged, in the manner
stated, the law determines what the name of the crime is and
fixes the penalty therefor. x x x If the accused performed the acts
alleged in the manner alleged, then he ought to be punished and
punished adequately, whatever may be the name of the crime
35
which those acts constitute.
Same; Same; Elements of Falsification of Private Documents.
—The elements of falsification of private document under Article
172, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that the
offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in
paragraph 7, Article 171; (2) that the falsification was committed
in any private document; and (3) that the falsification caused
damage to a third party or at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause such damage.
Same; Same; Handwriting; The handwriting of a person may
be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of
such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen
writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or
been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the
handwriting of such person.—Medallo categorically declared that
she saw Batulanon forge the signatures of Oracion and Arroyo in
the vouchers and made it appear that the amounts stated therein
were actually received by these persons. As to the signature of
Arroyo, Medallo’s credible testimony and her familiarity with the
handwriting of Batulanon
36 37
VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 37
Batulanon vs. People
proved that it was indeed the latter who signed the name of
Arroyo. Contrary to Batulanon’s contention, the prosecution is not
duty-bound to present the persons whose signatures were forged
as Medallo’s eyewitness account of the incident was sufficient.
Moreover, under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the
handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has
seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his
upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
Same; Same; Compromise; In criminal cases, except those
involving quasi-offenses or criminal negligence or those allowed by
law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may
1/23 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/23
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.—The
claim that Batulanon’s letter to the cooperative asking for a
compromise was not an admission of guilt is untenable. Section
27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that in criminal cases,
except those involving quasi-offenses or criminal negligence or
those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise
by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Vouchers are private
documents and not commercial documents because they are not
documents used by merchants or businessmen to promote or
facilitate trade or credit transactions, nor are they defined and
regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law;
Private documents are deeds or instruments executed by a private
person without the intervention of a public notary or of other
person legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement
is proved, evidenced or set forth.—The Court of Appeals correctly
ruled that the subject vouchers are private documents and not
commercial documents because they are not documents used by
merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit
transactions nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of
Commerce or other commercial law. Rather, they are private
documents, which have been defined as deeds or instruments
executed by a private person without the intervention of a public
notary or of other person legally authorized, by which some
disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth.
38
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Batulanon vs. People
Same; Same; Estafa; There is no complex crime of estafa
through falsification of private document; If the falsification of a
private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the
proper crime to be charged is falsification; If the estafa can be
committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the
proper crime to be charged is estafa.—As there is no complex
crime of estafa through falsification of private document, it is
important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with
falsification of a private document or with estafa. If the
falsification of a private document is committed as a means to
commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If
the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a
document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa. Thus, in
People v. Reyes, 56 Phil. 286 (1931), the accused made it appear in
the time book of the Calamba Sugar Estate that a laborer, Ciriaco
Sario, worked 21 days during the month of July, 1929, when in
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
reality he had worked only 11 days, and then charged the
offended party, the Calamba Sugar Estate, the wages of the
laborer for 21 days. The accused misappropriated the wages
during which the laborer did not work for which he was convicted
of falsification of private document.
Same; Same; The essence of falsification is the act of making
untruthful or false statements.—In Criminal Case No. 3627, the
trial court convicted petitioner Batulanon for falsifying Dennis
Batulanon’s signature in the cash voucher based on the
Information charging her of signing the name of her 3 year old
son, Dennis. The records, however, reveal that in Cash Voucher
No. 374A, petitioner Batulanon did not falsify the signature of
Dennis. What she did was to sign: “by: lbatulanon” to indicate
that she received the proceeds of the loan in behalf of Dennis.
Said act does not fall under any of the modes of falsification under
Article 171 because there in nothing untruthful about the fact
that she used the name of Dennis and that as representative of
the latter, obtained the proceeds of the loan from PCCI. The
essence of falsification is the act of making untruthful or false
statements, which is not attendant in this case. As to whether,
such representation involves fraud which caused damage to PCCI
is a different matter which will make her liable for estafa, but not
for falsification. Hence, it was an error for the courts below to hold
that petitioner Batulanon is also guilty of falsification of private
document with respect to Criminal Case No. 3627 involving the
cash voucher of Dennis.
39
VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 39
Batulanon vs. People
Same; Same; Elements of Estafa Through Conversion or
Misappropriation.—The elements of estafa through conversion or
misappropriation under Art. 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code
are: (1) that money, goods or other personal property is received
by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration,
or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery
of, or to return, the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or
conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on
his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; (4) that there is
a demand made by the offended party on the offender. (Note: The
4th element is not necessary when there is evidence of
misappropriation of the goods by the defendant)
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
3/23 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/23
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
     Acharon, Alconera & Associates for petitioner.
     The Solicitor General for the People.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
1 thus making it appear that the said Erlinda Omadlao was
This petition assails the October 30, 1998 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15221,2
affirming with
modification the April 15, 1993 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 22 in Criminal
Case Nos. 3453, 3625, 3626 and 3627, convicting Leonila
Batulanon of estafa through falsification of3 commercial
documents, and the July 29, 1999 Resolution denying the
motion for reconsideration.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 25-40. Penned by Associate Justice Arturo B. Buena and
concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Barcelona and Demetrio G.
Demetria.
2 CA Rollo, pp. 34-41. Penned by Judge Abednego O. Adre.
3 Rollo, p. 41.
40
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Batulanon vs. People
Complainant Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated
(PCCI) employed Batulanon as its Cashier/Manager from
May 1980 up to December 22, 1982. She was in charge of
receiving deposits from and releasing loans to the member
of the cooperative.
During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain
irregularities
4
concerning the release of loans were
discovered.
Thereafter, four informations for estafa thru falsification
of commercial documents were filed against Batulanon, to
wit:
Criminal Case No. 3625
“That on or about the 2nd day of June, 1982 at Poblacion
Municipality of Polomolok, Province of South Cotabato,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court
said accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit
Cooperative, Inc., (PCCI), entrusted with the duty of managing
the aff[a]irs of the cooperative, receiving payments to, and
collections of, the same, and paying out loans to members, taking
advantage of her position and with intent to prejudice and
defraud the cooperative, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously falsify a commercial document, namely:
Cash/Check Voucher No. 30-A of PCCI in the name of Erlinda
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
Omadlao by then and there making an entry therein that the said
Erlinda Omadlao was granted a loan of P4,160, Philippine
Currency, and by signing on the appropriate line thereon the
signature of Erlinda Omadlao showing that she received the loan,
granted a loan and received the amount of P4,160 when in truth
and in fact the said person was never granted a loan, never
received the same, and never signed the cash/check voucher
issued in her name, and in furtherance of her criminal intent and
fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said accused did then and
there release to herself the same and received the loan of P4,160
and thereafter misappropriate and convert to her own use and
benefit the said amount, and despite demands, refused and still
refuses to restitute the same, to the damage and prejudice of
PCCI, in 5 the aforementioned amount of P4,160, Philippine
Currency.”
_______________
4 TSN, August 1, 1990, pp. 96-97.
5 CA Rollo, pp. 16-17.
41
VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 41
Batulanon vs. People
Criminal Case No. 3626
“That on or about the 24th day of September, 1982 at Poblacion,
Municipality of Polomolok, Province of South Cotabato,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court,
said accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit
Cooperative, Inc. (PCCI), entrusted with the duty of managing the
affairs of the cooperative, receiving payments to, and collections
of, the same, and paying out loans to members taking advantage
of her position and with intent to prejudice and defraud the
cooperative, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously falsify a commercial document, namely: Cash/Check
Voucher No. 237 A of PCCI in the name of Gonafreda Oracion by
then and there making an entry therein that the said Gonafreda
Oracion was granted a loan of P4,000.00 and by signals on the
appropriate line thereon the signature of Gonafreda Oracion
showing that she received the loan, thus making it appear that
the said Gonafreda Oracion was granted a loan, received the loan
of P4,000.00 when in truth and in fact said person was never
granted a loan, never received the same, and never signed the
Cash/Check voucher issued in her name, and in furtherance of her
criminal intent and fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said
accused did then and there release to herself the same and
received the amount of P4,000.00 and thereafter misappropriate
5/23 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/23
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
and convert to her own use and benefit the said amount, and
despite demands, refused and still refuses to restitute the same,
to the damage and prejudice of PCCI, in the aforementioned
amount of P4,000, Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
6
Criminal Case No. 3453
“That on or about the 10th day of October 1982 at Poblacion,
Municipality of Polomolok, Province of South Cotabato,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court,
the said accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok
Credit Cooperative, Inc., (PCCI), entrusted with the duty of
managing the affairs of the cooperative, receiving payments to,
and collection of the same and paying out loans to members,
taking advantage of her position and with intent to prejudice and
defraud the cooperative, did then and
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 18-19.
42
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Batulanon vs. People
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a commercial
document, namely: an Individual Deposits and Loan Ledger of one
Ferlyn Arroyo with the PCCI by then and there entering on the
appropriate column of the ledger the entry that the said Ferlyn
Arroyo had a fixed deposit of P1,000.00 with the PCCI and was
granted a loan in the amount of P3,500.00, thus making it appear
that the said person made a fixed deposit on the aforesaid date
with, and was granted a loan by the PCCI when in truth and in
fact Ferlyn Arroyo never made such a deposit and was never
granted loan and after the document was so falsified in the
manner set forth, said accused did then and there again falsify
the Cash/Check Voucher of the PCCI in the name of Ferlyn
Arroyo by signing therein the signature of Ferlyn Arroyo, thus
making it appear that the said Ferlyn Arroyo received the loan of
P3,500, Philippine Currency, when in truth and in fact said
Ferlyn Arroyo never received the loan, and in furtherance of her
criminal intent and fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said
accused did then and there release to herself the same, and
received the amount of P3,500, and thereafter, did then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate and convert to
her own personal use and benefit the said amount, and despite
demands, refused and still refuses to restitute the same, to the
damage and prejudice of the PCCI in the aforementioned amount
of P3,500, Philippine Currency.
7
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
Criminal Case No. 3627
“That on or about the 7th day of December, 1982 at Poblacion,
Municipality of Polomolok, Province of South Cotabato,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court,
the said accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok
Credit Cooperative, Inc., (PCCI) entrusted with the duty of
managing the affairs of the cooperative, receiving payments to,
and collection of, the same and paying out loans to members,
taking advantage of her position and with intent to prejudice and
defraud the cooperative, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously falsify a commercial document, namely: an
Individual Deposits and Loan Ledger of one Dennis Batulanon
with the PCCI by then and there entering on the appropriate
column of the ledger the entry that the said Dennis
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 14-15.
43
VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 43
Batulanon vs. People
Batulanon had a fixed deposit of P2,000.00 with the PCCI and
was granted a loan in the amount of P5,000.00 thus making it
appear that the said person made fixed deposit on the aforesaid
date with, and was granted a loan by the PCCI when in truth and
in fact Dennis Batulanon never made such a deposit and was
never granted loan and offer the document was so falsified in the
manner set forth, said accused did then and there again falsify
the Cash/Check Voucher No. 374 A of PCCI in the name of Dennis
Batulanon by signing therein the signature of Dennis Batulanon,
thus making it appear that the said Dennis Batulanon received
the loan of P5,000.00 when in truth and in fact said Dennis
Batulanon never received the loan and in furtherance of her
criminal intent and fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said
accused did then and there release to herself the same and receive
the loan of P5,000, and thereafter, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate and convert to her own
personal use and benefit the said amount, and [despite] demands,
refused and still refuses to restitute the same to the damage and
prejudice of the PCCI in the aforementioned amount of P5,000,
Philippine Currency. 8
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
The cases were raffled to Branch 22 of the Regional Trial
Court of General Santos City and docketed as Criminal
Case Nos. 3453, 3625, 3626 and 3627.
Batulanon pleaded not guilty to the charges, afterwhich
a joint trial on the merits ensued.
7/23 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/23
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502

The prosecution presented Maria Theresa Medallo, 11 Id., at p. 238.

Benedicto Gopio, Jr., and Bonifacio Jayoma as witnesses. 12 Also referred to as Godofreda in the Records.
Medallo, the posting clerk whose job was 9 to assist 13 Records, p. 239.
Batulanon in the preparation of cash vouchers testified 14 Id., at p. 240; TSN, March 4, 1986, pp. 5, 7-8.
that on certain dates in 1982, Batulanon released four 15 Id., at pp. 234-237.
Cash Vouchers representing varying amounts to four 16 TSN, March 4, 1986, pp. 24-25.
different individuals
10
as follows: On June 2, 1982, Cash 17 Id., at pp. 12-14.
Voucher No. 30A for P4,160.00 was released to Erlinda 18 TSN, August 1, 1990, pp. 101-106.
Omadlao; on September 24, 19 Id., at p. 10.

45
_______________

8 Id., at pp. 20-21.

VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 45
9 TSN, August 13, 1983, pp. 3-5.
10 Records, p. 230. Batulanon vs. People

44
who was only 3 years old in 1982. He averred20 that
membership in the cooperative is not open to minors.
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Jayoma was the Vice-Chairman of the PCCI Board of
Directors in 1980 before becoming its Chairman in 1982
Batulanon vs. People
until 1983. He testified that the loans made to Oracion,
11 Omadlao, Arroyo and Dennis Batulanon did not pass
1982, Cash Voucher
12
No. 237A for P4,000.00 was released through the cooperative’s Credit Committee and PCCI’s
to Gonafreda
13
Oracion; P3, 500.00 thru Cash Voucher No. Board of Directors for screening purposes. He claimed that
276A was released to Ferlyn Arroyo on October 16, 1982 Oracion’s signature on 21Cash Voucher No. 237A is
and on December 7, 1982, P5,000.00 was released 14
to Batulanon’s handwriting. Jayoma also testified that
Dennis Batulanon thru Cash Voucher No. 374A. among the 22four loans taken, only that in Arroyo’s name
Medallo testified that Omadlao, Oracion, and Dennis was settled.
Batulanon were not eligible to apply for loan because
15
they The defense presented two witnesses, namely, Maria
were not bona fide members of the cooperative. Ferlyn Theresa Medallo who was presented as a hostile witness
Arroyo on the other hand, was a member of the cooperative and Batulanon.
but there was no proof that she applied for a loan with Medallo was subpoenaed by the trial court on behalf of
PCCI in161982. She subsequently withdrew her membership the defense and was asked to bring with her the PCCI
in 1983. Medallo stated that pursuant to the cooperative’s General Journal for the year 1982. After certifying that the
by-laws, only bona fide members 17
who must have a fixed said document reflected all the financial transactions of the
deposit are eligible for loans. cooperative for that year, she was asked to identify the
Medallo categorically stated that she saw Batulanon entries in the Journal with respect to the vouchers in
sign the names of Oracion and Arroyo in their respective question. Medallo was able to identify only Cash Voucher
cash vouchers and made it appear in the records that they 18 No. 237A in the name of Gonafreda Oracion. She failed to
were payees and recipients of the amount stated therein. identify the other vouchers because the Journal had
As to the signature of Omadlao in Cash Voucher No. 30A, missing23pages and she was not the one who prepared the
she declared
19
that the same was actually the handwriting of entries.
appellant. Batulanon denied all the charges against her. She
Gopio, Jr. was a member of PCCI since 1975 and a claimed that she did not sign the vouchers in the names of
member of its board of directors since 1979. He Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo; that the same were signed
corroborated Medallo’s testimony that Omadlao, Arroyo, by the loan applicants in her presence at the PCCI office
Oracion and Dennis Batulanon are not members of PCCI. 24
after she personally released the money to them; that the
He stated that Oracion is Batulanon’s sister-in-law while three were members of the cooperative as shown by their
Dennis Batulanon is her son individual de-

_______________ _______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/23 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/23

3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502

20 TSN, October 22, 1986, pp. 5-19. 47

21 TSN, June 10, 1987, pp. 14-15.
22 Id., at p. 19.
VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 47
23 TSN, February 16, 1988, pp. 2-15.
24 TSN, November 14, 1988, pp. 5-6; 8-10 and 14-16. Batulanon vs. People

46
of ARRESTO MAYOR to 1 year and 2 months of PRISION
CORRECCIONAL, to indemnify the PCCI in the total sum of
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED P16,660.00 with legal interest from the institution of the
complaints until fully paid, plus costs.
Batulanon vs. People 31
SO ORDERED.”

posits and the ledger; that the board of directors passed a The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the
resolution in August 1982 authorizing her to certify to the decision of the trial court, thus:
correctness of the entries in the vouchers; that it has
become an accepted practice in the cooperative for her to “WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED.
release loans and dispense with the approval of Gopio Jr., Appellant LEONILA BATULANON is found guilty beyond
25
in case of his absence; that she signed the loan application reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private Documents under Par.
and voucher of her son Dennis Batulanon because he was a 2, Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code; and is hereby sentenced
minor but she clarified that she asked Gopio, Jr., to add his to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto
signature on the documents to avoid suspicion of mayor maximum, AS MINIMUM, to four (4) years and two (2)
26
irregularity; that contrary to the testimony of Gopio, Jr., months of prision correccional medium, AS MAXIMUM; to pay a
minors are eligible for membership in the cooperative fine of five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos; and to indemnify the
provided they are children of regular members. Polomolok Cooperative Credit, Inc. the sum of thirteen thousand
Batulanon admitted that she took out a loan in her son’s one hundred sixty (P13,160.00), plus legal interests from the filing
name because she is no longer qualified for another loan as of the complaints until
32
fully paid, plus costs.
she still has to pay off an existing loan; that she had SO ORDERED.”
started paying off her son’s loan but the cooperative
The motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this
refused to accept her payments after the cases were filed in
27 petition.
court. She also declared that one automatically becomes 28 a
Batulanon argues that in any falsification case, the best
member when he deposits money with the cooperative.
witness is the person whose signature was allegedly forged,
When she was Cashier/Manager of PCCI from 1980 to
29 thus the prosecution should have presented Erlinda
1982, the cooperative did not have by-laws yet.
Omadlao, Gonafreda Oracion and Ferlyn Arroyo instead of
On rebuttal, Jayoma belied that PCCI had no by-laws
relying on the testimony33 of an unreliable and biased
from 1980-1982, because the cooperative had been
30 witness such as Medallo. She avers that the crime of
registered since 1967.
falsification of private document requires as an element
On April 15, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision
prejudice to a third person. She insists that PCCI has not
convicting Batulanon as follows:
been prejudiced by these loan transactions because34
these
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the accused Leonila loans are accounts receivable by the cooperative.
Batulanon guilty beyond reasonable doubt in all the above-
entitled case, she is sentenced in each of the four cases to 4 _______________
months
31 CA Rollo, pp. 40-41.
32 Rollo, p. 39.
_______________
33 Id., at p. 6.
25 Id., at p. 13. 34 Id., at p. 13.
26 Id., at pp. 19-23.
48
27 TSN, March 29, 1988, p. 38.
28 Id., at pp. 30-31.
29 Id., at p. 34. 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
30 TSN, March 28, 1990, p. 69. Batulanon vs. People
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/23 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/23
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
The petition lacks merit.
Although the offense charged in the information is
estafa through falsification of commercial document,
appellant could be convicted of falsification of private
document under the well-settled rule that it is the
allegations in the information that determines the nature
of the offense and not the technical name given in35 the
preamble of the information. In Andaya v. People, we
held:
“From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no
concern to the accused what is the technical name of the crime of
which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on
the merits. x x x That to which his attention should be directed,
and in which he, above all things else, should be most interested,
are the facts alleged. The real question is not did he commit a
crime given in the law some technical and specific name, but did
he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the
manner therein set forth. x x x The real and important question to
him is, “Did you perform the acts alleged in the manner alleged?”
not, “Did you commit a crime named murder?” If he performed the
acts alleged, in the manner stated, the law determines what the
name of the crime is and fixes the penalty therefor. x x x If the
accused performed the acts alleged in the manner alleged, then he
ought to be punished and punished adequately, whatever may be
the name of the crime which those acts constitute.”
The elements of falsification of private document under
36
Article 172, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code are:
(1) that
_______________
35 G.R. No. 168486, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 539, citing U.S. v. Lim
San, 17 Phil. 273 (1910).
36 Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified
documents.—The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon: x x x
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with intent to
cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts
of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.
VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
Batulanon vs. People
the offender committed any of the acts of falsification,
except those in paragraph 7, Article 171; (2) that the
falsification was committed in any private document; and
(3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
at least the falsification
37
was committed with intent to cause
such damage.
In Criminal38 Case Nos. 3625, 3626, and 3453,
Batulanon’s act of falsification falls under paragraph 2 of
Article 171, i.e., causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in
fact so participate. This is because by signing the name of
Omadlao, Oracion, and Arroyo in Cash Voucher Nos. 30A,
237A, and 267A, respectively, as payee of the amounts
appearing in the corresponding cash vouchers, Batulanon
made it appear that they obtained a loan and received its
proceeds when they did not in fact secure said loan nor
receive the amounts reflected in the cash vouchers.
The prosecution established that Batulanon caused the
preparation of the Cash Vouchers in the name of Omadlao
and Oracion knowing that they are not PCCI members and
not qualified for a loan from the cooperative. In the case of
Arroyo, Batulanon was aware that while the former is a
member, she did not apply for a loan with the cooperative.
Medallo categorically declared that she saw Batulanon
forge the signatures of Oracion and Arroyo in the vouchers
and made it appear that the amounts stated therein were
actually received by these persons. As to the signature of
Arroyo, Medallo’s credible testimony and her familiarity
with
_______________
37 Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 144026, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 593.
38 Although Batulanon signed the names of Omadlao, Oracion, and
Arroyo, her act of falsification will not fall under Paragraph 1 of Article
171, which requires that there must be an attempt or intent on the part of
the accused to imitate the signature of other persons. Such was not shown
in this case because the genuine signature of Omadlao, Oracion, and
Arroyo were never offered in evidence. See Reyes, The Revised Penal Code,
Vol. II (15th ed., 2001), pp. 205-206.
50
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Batulanon vs. People
49
the handwriting of Batulanon proved that it was indeed the
latter who signed the name of Arroyo. Contrary to
49 Batulanon’s contention, the prosecution is not duty-bound
to present the persons whose signatures were forged as
Medallo’s eyewitness account of the incident was sufficient.
Moreover, under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,
the handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness
who believes it to be the handwriting of such person
because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing
13/23 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/23
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or
been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the
handwriting of such person.
Her insistence that Medallo is a biased witness is
without basis. There is no evidence showing that Medallo
was prompted by any ill motive.
The claim that Batulanon’s letter to the cooperative
asking for a compromise was not an admission of guilt is
untenable. Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
provides that in criminal cases, except those involving
quasi-offenses or criminal negligence or those allowed by
law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt.
There is no merit in Batulanon’s assertion that PCCI
has not been prejudiced because the loan transactions are
reflected in its books as accounts receivable. It has been
established that PCCI only grants loans to its bona fide
members with no subsisting loan. These alleged borrowers
are not members of PCCI and neither are they eligible for a
loan. Of the four accounts, only that in Ferlyn Arroyo’s
name was settled because her mother, Erlinda, agreed to
settle the loan to avoid legal prosecution with the
understanding however, that she will 39be reimbursed once
the money is collected from Batulanon.
_______________
39 TSN, August 13, 1986, pp. 10-13.
VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
Batulanon vs. People
40
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the subject
vouchers are private documents and not commercial
documents because they are not documents used by
merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or
41
credit transactions nor are they defined and regulated
42
the Code of Commerce or other commercial law. Rather,
they are private documents, which have been defined as
deeds or instruments executed by a private person without
the intervention of a public notary or of other person
legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement
43
is proved, evidenced or set forth.
In all criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof is on
the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It has the duty to prove each and every
element of the crime charged in the information to warrant
a finding of guilt for the said crime or for any other crime
44
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
44
necessarily included therein. The prosecution in this case
was able to discharge its burden completely.
_______________
40 Citing People v. Francisco, C.A., No. 05130-41-CR, August 23, 1966,
64 O.G. 537, 541, cited in Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II
(14th ed., 1998), p. 234. In People v. Francisco, the Court of Appeals ruled
that “the cash disbursement vouchers here in question are not negotiable
instruments nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce.
They are nothing more than receipts evidencing payment to borrowers of
the loans extended to them and as such are private documents only.”
41 Monteverde v. People, 435 Phil. 906, 921; 387 SCRA 196, 210 (2002),
citing Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II (14th ed., 1998), p.
236, citing People v. Lizares, C.A., 65 O.G. 7174.
42 Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II (14th ed., 1998), p.
235, citing People v. Co Beng, C.A., 40 O.G. 1913.
43 U.S. v. Orera, 11 Phil. 596, 597 (1907).
44 People v. Caingat, 426 Phil. 782, 792; 376 SCRA 387, 396 (2002).
52
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Batulanon vs. People
As there is no complex45
crime of estafa through falsification
of private document, it is important to ascertain whether
the offender is to be charged with falsification of a private
51
document or with estafa. If the falsification of a private
document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the
proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can
51 be committed without the necessity of falsifying a
document, the proper
46
crime to be charged is estafa. Thus,
in People v. Reyes, the accused made it appear in the time
book of the Calamba Sugar Estate that a laborer, Ciriaco
Sario, worked 21 days during the month of July, 1929,
when in reality he had worked only 11 days, and then
charged the offended party, the Calamba Sugar Estate, the
wages of the laborer for 21 days. The accused
by
misappropriated the wages during which the laborer did
not work for which he was convicted of falsification of
private document. 47
In U.S. v. Infante, the accused changed the description
of the pawned article on the face of the pawn ticket and
made it appear that the article is of greatly superior value,
and thereafter pawned the falsified ticket in another
pawnshop for an amount largely in excess of the true value
of the article pawned. He was found guilty of 48falsification of
a private document. In U.S. v. Chan Tiao, the accused
presented a document of guaranty purportedly signed by
Ortigas Hermanos for the payment of P2,055.00 as the
15/23 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/23
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
value of 150 sacks of sugar, and by means of said falsified
documents, succeeded in obtaining the sacks of sugar, was
held guilty of falsification of a private document.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Court of
Appeals correctly held Batulanon guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of
_______________
45 A. Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review (9th ed., 1997),
p. 464, citing Cuello Calon, II, p. 261.
46 56 Phil. 286 (1931).
47 36 Phil. 146 (1917).
48 37 Phil. 78 (1917).
VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
Batulanon vs. People
Falsification of Private Documents in Criminal Case Nos.
3625, 3626 and 3453.
Article 172 punishes the crime of Falsification of a
Private Document with the penalty of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods with a duration of two
(2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances,
the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which
is three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days
to four (4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days. Taking
into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
Batulanon is entitled to an indeterminate penalty the
minimum of which must be within the range of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, or four (4) months
49
and one (1) day to two
(2) years and four (4) months. Thus, in Criminal Case
Nos. 3625, 3626 and 3453, the Court of Appeals correctly
imposed the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as maximum, which is within the range of the
allowed imposable penalty.
Since Batulanon’s conviction was for 3 counts of
falsification of private documents, she shall suffer the
aforementioned penalties for each count of the offense
charged. She is also ordered to indemnify PCCI the amount
of P11,660.00 representing the aggregate amount of the 3
loans without deducting the amount of P3,500.00 paid by
Ferlyn Arroyo’s mother as the same was settled with the
understanding that PCCI will reimburse the former once
the money is recovered. The amount shall earn interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the filing of the complaints
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
on November 28, 1994 until the finality of this judgment.
From the time the decision becomes final and executory,
the interest rate shall be 12% per annum until its
satisfaction.
_______________
49 Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128213, December 13, 2005, 477
SCRA 427, 435.
54
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Batulanon vs. People
53
However, in Criminal Case No. 3627, the crime committed
53
by Batulanon is estafa and not falsification. Under Article
171 of the Revised Penal Code, the acts that may constitute
falsification are the following:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
signature, or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated
in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact
so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an
act or proceeding statements other than those in
fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of
facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document
purporting to be a copy of an original document
when no such original exists, or including in such
copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that
of the genuine original; or;
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the
issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official
book.
In Criminal Case No. 3627, the trial court convicted
petitioner Batulanon for falsifying Dennis Batulanon’s
signature in the cash voucher based on the Information
charging her of signing the name of her 3 year old son,
Dennis. The records, however, reveal that in Cash Voucher
No. 374A, petitioner Batulanon did not falsify the
signature of Dennis. What she did was to sign: “by:
lbatulanon” to indicate that she received the proceeds of
17/23 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/23
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
the loan in behalf of Dennis. Said act does not fall under
any of the modes of falsification under Article 171 because
there in nothing untruthful about the fact that she used
the name of Dennis and that as representative of the latter,
obtained the proceeds of the loan from PCCI. The essence
of falsification is the act of making untruthful or false
statements, which is not attendant in this case. As to
whether, such representation involves fraud which caused
VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
Batulanon vs. People
damage to PCCI is a different matter which will make her
liable for estafa, but not for falsification. Hence, it was an
error for the courts below to hold that petitioner Batulanon
is also guilty of falsification of private document with
respect to Criminal 50
Case No. 3627 involving the cash
voucher of Dennis.
The elements of estafa through conversion or
misappropriation under Art. 315 (1) (b) of the Revised
Penal Code are:
(1) that money, goods or other personal property is
received by the offender in trust, or on commission,
or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return,
the same;
(2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of
such money or property by the offender or denial on
his part of such receipt;
(3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial
is to the prejudice of another;
(4) that there is a demand made by the offended party
on the offender. (Note: The 4th element is not
necessary when there is evidence 51 of
misappropriation of the goods by the defendant)
52
Thus in the case of U.S. v. Sevilla, the Court convicted the
appellant of estafa by misappropriation. The latter, a
treasurer of the Manila Rail Road Company, took the sum
of P8,330.00 out of the funds of the company and used it for
personal purposes. He replaced said cash with his personal
check of the same amount drawn on the Philippine
National Bank (PNB), with instruction to his cashier not to
deposit the
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
50 While the Information alleged that petitioner Batulanon also
falsified the “Individual Deposits and Loan Ledger” of Dennis Batulanon,
she cannot likewise be convicted of falsifying said document as it was not
formally offered in evidence.
51 Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II (15th ed., 2001), p. 736.
52 43 Phil. 186 (1922), cited in Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II
(15th ed., 2001), p. 750.
56
55
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
55
Batulanon vs. People
same in the current account of the Manila Rail Road
Company until the end of the month. When an audit was
conducted, the check of appellant was discovered to have
been carried in the accounts as part of the cash on hand.
An inquiry with the PNB disclosed that he had only
P125.66 in his account, although in the afternoon of the
same day, he deposited in his account with the PNB
sufficient sum to cover the check. In handing down a
judgment of conviction, the Court explained that:
“Fraudulent intent in committing the conversion or diversion is
very evidently not a necessary element of the form of estafa here
discussed; the breach of confidence involved in the conversion or
diversion of trust funds takes the place of fraudulent intent and is
in itself sufficient. The reason for this is obvious: Grave as the
offense is, comparatively few men misappropriate trust funds
with the intention of defrauding the owner; in most cases the
offender hopes to be able to restore the funds before the
defalcation is discovered. x x x
Applying the legal principles here stated to the facts of the
case, we find all of the necessary elements of estafa x x x. That the
money for which the appellant’s checks were substituted was
received by him for safe-keeping or administration, or both, can
hardly be disputed. He was the responsible financial officer of the
corporation and as such had immediate control of the current
funds for the purposes of safe-keeping and was charged with the
custody of the same. That he, in the exercise of such control and
custody, was aided by subordinates cannot alter the case nor can
the fact that one of the subordinates, the cashier, was a bonded
employee who, if he had acted on his own responsibility, might
also have misappropriated the same funds and thus have become
guilty of estafa.
Neither can there be any doubt that, in taking money for his
personal use, from the funds entrusted to him for safekeeping and
substituting his personal checks therefor with instructions that
the checks were to be retained by the cashier for a certain period,
the appellant misappropriated and diverted the funds for that
period. The checks did not constitute cash and as long as they
19/23 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/23
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502

were retained by the appellant or remained under his personal 53 Id., at pp. 189-191.
control they were of no value to the corporation; he might as well
have kept them in his pocket as to deliver them to his subordinate 58

with instructions to retain them.

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
57
Batulanon vs. People

VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 57

misappropriation is in itself sufficient to constitute injury
Batulanon vs. People within the meaning of Article 315.
Considering that the amount misappropriated by
xxxx Batulanon was P5,000.00, the applicable provision is
But it is argued in the present case that it was not the paragraph (3) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code,
intention of the accused to permanently misappropriate the funds which imposes the penalty of arresto mayor in its
to himself. As we have already stated, such intention rarely exists maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
in cases of this nature and, as we have seen, it is not a necessary period, where the amount defrauded is over P200.00 but
element of the crime. Though authorities have been cited who, at does not exceed P6,000.00. There being no modifying
first sight, appear to hold that misappropriation of trust funds for circumstances, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium
short periods does not always amount to estafa, we are not period. With the application of the Indeterminate Sentence
disposed to extend this interpretation of the law to cases where Law, Batulanon is entitled to an indeterminate penalty of
officers of corporations convert corporate funds to their own use, three (3) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1)
especially where, as in this case, the corporation is of a quasi- year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as
public character. The statute is clear and makes no distinction maximum.
between permanent misappropriations and temporary ones. We WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is
can see no reason in the present case why it should not be applied AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
in its literal sense.
The third element of the crime with which the appellant is (1) In Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626 and 3453,
charged is injury to another. The appellant's counsel argues that Leonila Batulanon is found GUILTY of three counts
the only injury in this case is the loss of interest suffered by the of falsification of private documents and is
Railroad Company during the period the funds were withheld by sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of
the appellant. It is, however, well settled by former adjudications arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and
of this court that the disturbance in property rights caused by the two (2) months of prision correccional, as
misappropriation, though only temporary, is in itself sufficient to maximum, for each count, and to indemnify
constitute injury within the meaning of paragraph 5, supra. (U.S. complainant Polomolok Credit Cooperative
53
vs. Goyenechea, 8 Phil. 117; U.S. vs. Malong, 36 Phil. 821.)” Incorporated the amount of P11,660.00 with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
In the instant case, there is no doubt that as November 28, 1994 until finality of this judgment.
Cashier/Manager, Batulanon holds the money for The interest rate of 12% per annum shall be
administration and in trust for PCCI. Knowing that she is imposed from finality of this judgment until its
no longer qualified to obtain a loan, she fraudulently used satisfaction; and
the name of her son who is likewise disqualified to secure a (2) In Criminal Case No. 3627, Leonila Batulanon is
loan from PCCI. Her misappropriation of the amount she found GUILTY of estafa and is sentenced to suffer
obtained from the loan is also not disputed as she even the penalty of three (3) months of arresto mayor, as
admitted receiving the same for personal use. Although the minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of
amount received by Batulanon is reflected in the records as prision correccional, as maximum. She is likewise
part of the receivables of PCCI, damage was still caused to ordered to indemnify Polomolok Credit Cooperative
the latter because the sum misappropriated by her could Incorporated the sum of P5,000.00 with interest at
have been loaned by PCCI to qualified members, or used in the rate of 6% per annum from November 28, 1994
other productive undertakings. At any rate, the until finality of this judgment. The interest rate of
disturbance in property rights caused by Batulanon’s 12% per annum

_______________ 59

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/23 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/23

3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502

VOL. 502, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 59

Pascual vs. Fajardo

shall be imposed from finality of this judgment

until its satisfaction.

SO ORDERED.

     Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Austria-Martinez,

Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modifications.

Notes.—Greed has always been one of man’s failings—

the hope of greater gain has lured many a man to throw
caution, and his common sense, to the wind. (People vs.
Balasa, 295 SCRA 49 [1998])
Where the allegations in the criminal complaint state
that the accused stole the blank check, there was no deceit
employed to induce the owner to part with her check, the
crime committed is clearly not estafa. (Oporto, Jr. vs.
Monserate, 356 SCRA 443 [2001])
Conversion and demand are not elements of estafa
under Art. 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs.
Gonzales-Flores, 356 SCRA 722 [2001])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f81a31913fdc22c1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/23